CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
4.1 The single most
important reform which is needed for the Fifth Framework Programme
by comparison with previous Framework Programmes is for it to
be focused on a smaller range of subjects, and within each subject
on a smaller range of better-defined programmes (paragraph 3.2).
We urge the Government to make every effort in the Council of
Ministers to force the Commission to honour its commitment to
a more focused Programme; to this end, some of the activities
of FP4 must be explicitly terminated (paragraph 3.3).
4.2 Whatever agenda
is chosen for FP5, it should play to the strengths of European
research and development, with a view to maximising the achievements,
and the return on the achievements, of Europe's best researchers
and centres of scientific excellence (paragraph 3.5).
4.3 While we support
international scientific collaboration beyond the borders of Europe,
we consider that the Commission's proposals for "Confirming
the international role of European research" envisage too
wide a range of collaborations (paragraph 3.6).
4.4 We welcome the
proposal in Towards FP5 2 that each programme
in FP5 should include support for research infrastructure (paragraph 3.8).
4.5 We support the
Commission's proposal (paragraph 1.19) for a contingency
fund or "free space" in FP5, to allow the focus to be
sharpened or shifted as the Programme unfolds. Calls on the contingency
fund must meet the same criteria as all other proposals; in addition
it will have to be demonstrated that the research proposed is
urgent, and that the need and opportunity for it were unforeseeable
when FP5 was drawn up (paragraph 3.9).
4.6 We do not consider
that there is a distinctive EU scientific agenda, beyond the needs
of the Commission. However we are persuaded that EU research
funding offers substantial (though unquantifiable) added value
by encouraging both universities and firms to collaborate and
share knowledge across Europe's frontiers (paragraph 3.10).
4.7 The Training and
Mobility of Researchers programme, with its focus on people rather
than projects, is one of the most valuable parts of the Framework
Programme. For FP5, the coverage of TMR should be increased,
and the process of selection improved (paragraph 3.11).
4.8 For FP5, funding
for academic posts should be set at a more realistic level as
regards associated costs, with appropriate audit controls (paragraph 3.12).
4.9 We recommend that
improved evaluation systems be put in place for FP5, based on
best practice in the United Kingdom and other Member States (paragraph 3.13).
4.10 Any part of the
Framework Programme should be permitted to fund basic research
to any level, if that research underpins the objective of the
programme. We therefore welcome the proposal in Towards FP5 2
that each programme in FP5 should permit unlimited support for
"generic technologies and basic research". The Programme
must also allow for long-term funding (paragraph 3.15).
4.11 Cohesion in terms
of R&D capacity is a proper objective for the EU, but is more
appropriately served by the Structural Funds. We recommend that
the explicit objective of fostering research capacity in the less
developed regions of the EU be entrusted exclusively to the Structural
Funds, and omitted from the mission of FP5, save in respect of
activities in the fields of training-and-mobility and dissemination
(paragraph 3.16).
4.12 Rather than diverting
resources from the Framework Programme's main thrust in an attempt
to involve smaller firms, FP5 should concentrate on assisting
them through research fellowships and through improved dissemination
of research results (paragraph 3.17).
4.13 The device of
highly focused groups, working to improve communication between
the Commission's resources, the scientific and industrial communities
and the needs of users, should be developed in FP4 and carried
forward into FP5. The Task Forces should be developed into advisory
groups, rather than into management committees with their own
budgets (paragraph 3.18).
4.14 We recommend root
and branch reform of the business processes of DG XII, in
time for the start of FP5. The management and evaluation of programmes
should involve individuals and national or international organisations
closer to the actual conduct of the research, including representatives
of research-led industry (paragraphs 3.20-21).
4.15 We urge Customs
and Excise to settle their dispute with the Commission promptly
so as to enable the universities to recover VAT from one side
or the other in the usual way (paragraph 3.22).
4.16 We call on the
Government to consider whether attribution as applied to research
expenditure should be modified in time for FP5, so as to give
those negotiating for the United Kingdom an interest in success
rather than in failure (paragraph 3.24).
4.17 The Joint Research
Centre's directly-funded core operations should be confined to
the few matters where a distinctively EU view of the questions
involved is essential. We recommend that the work of the JRC
should be open to competition, to peer review, and to assessment
by an independent group. The role of the JRC in FP5 should depend
on its success in open competition, not on any unconditional prior
commitment (paragraphs 3.26-28).
4.18 The Commission
are right to envisage dissemination and exploitation as an important
"horizontal activity" in FP5, concentrating on smaller
firms and less developed regions. We welcome the proposal in
Towards FP5 2 to address the problem of venture
capital for technological innovation (paragraph 3.29).
4.19 We recommend that
responsibility within the Commission for exploitation of research
outcomes should be united with responsibility for research in
time for the start of FP5 (paragraph 3.31).
4.20 We support the
Framework Programmes; and we consider that the extra cost of R&D
collaboration across frontiers is worth paying. But the value
for money represented by EU research activities must be improved,
and must be demonstrated by better evaluation. From FP5 the Government
should look for a higher overall standard of scientific outcomes,
leading to a better record of industrial exploitation.
4.21 We are grateful
to Professor Routti and his colleagues for their co-operation
in this inquiry. However we are dismayed by the approach to FP5
set out in Towards FP5 2. Where the Commission
promised focus and selectivity, they offer instead a programme
of vast scope and unlimited geographical extent; they promised
a reduced role for the JRC, but now it appears that its role is
to be maintained or enhanced. The United Kingdom and the European
Union have much to gain from FP5. All those involved in the negotiations
over the coming months need to work together to ensure that the
Programme is focused, adequately resourced, properly managed on
the basis of uniformly open competition, and capable of meeting
the needs and opportunities of the future.
